Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-17
COURT OF APPEALS.

John P. White, presiding judge; j. NJ. Hurt
I and Sam a. Wilson, judges; James L. White,
clerk; W. l. Davidson, assistant attorney
general; NJ. NJ. johnson. bailif
John Clark VS.. State, from Falls county /;
! opinion by White, P.J. This is an infor-
nation for unlawfully and knowingly fenc-
| ing the lands of another. There was g
dispute as to the ownership of the land in
question, it being claimed by appellant
and his vendors before him. The act of
February Z, 1884, does not apply here, and
g criminal prosecution is not the form Of
action to test property rights. The EVIL
dence does not support the verdict. The
| judgment is reversed and cause re-
manded.
Edward Wheeler VS.. State, from Lam
pssas county; opinion by Wilson, J.
In the proof i'll this case evidence was
allowed that at tie same time the horse
described in the indictment was taken
other horses belonging to one Queen were
taken. In admitting this evidence the
court failed to limit its legitimate pur-
| poses, which was error. II was not
necessary to instruct the Jury rs to the
meaning of wilful, as the Offense was one
which made it wilful per Sc. For the
error above, Judgment is reversed and
the cause Temanded.
| 7. j. Estis vs.. State, from Falls cOun-
| ty; opinion by Wilson, J The court
erred in permitting the witness L. Sharp
| to testify as to q negro calling the
wounded man Cool several times and
| then Jack Dupree, and that the wounded
man looked around when called Dupree.
| This was hearsay and does not come
under any OF the exceptions, aud as il
! teAded 70 Identify the man Cool with the
supposed man VINO stole the horses, was
material and prejudiCial to defendant
The court erred also in permitting wit
ness Atkins TO testify as to q converse
| ton with Lee EsLiS Gfter the supposed
| ofenSe was committed. 1t was error TO
refuse i new trial, as every inculpating
circumstance of any cogency is explained
and accounted for in the evidence, and
there is no evidence that indicates g
knowledge on defendants part that the
horses were stolen when he BOUGHT them.
We find no unexplained feet that points
to defendants guilt. The verdict of the
| Jury should have been set aside. Re
versed and remanded.
! @. V. Crump VS.. State, from Brown
county; opinion by White, p. J. This IS
g conviction under article l03, 2. c., of 8
Justice Of peace for converting to his own
use SO belonging to the county. The in
dlCtment is almost an exact reproduction
of the form prescribed, except one word,
which does not alter { he sense and is evil
IDENTITY q clerical error, Appellant cites
the case of Edwards vs. StSte, Ct APP,
52j, to show that he is not sucl 3 county
officer as is contemplated by
the statute That Gaze arose uu-
der act of April 7, 1873, and was
as 10 the construction OF statute and
has no application TO article l03, z. c..
/ He is expressly mentioned IS g county
| officer, section y, article of the cOnsti-
| tuition, also, article $780, K. s., who may
be removed t0r inCOmpeteacy, etc. Artl-
Giles 95l 9j3 and $50 clearly show that he
is embraced within their provisions. A
mature consideration OF the record, etc,
/ fail to furnish any reasons for reversing
judgment AID It is affirmed.
| w. j. Clark Us. State from Fannin
county; opinion by Wilson, j. This is q
motion for rehearIng of the above man.
! toned case, which was affirmed. There
are five reesODs given for the motion
! The first aud fifth are OYerruled, because
| T5en properly is stolen and taken from
one county to another the thief may be
| prosecuted in either county. The third
reason IS not sound. The second and
/ fourth reasons are that the court erred in
| instruCting the Jury upon the value of the
| thing stolen, that it was its cash market
value at the time and place of taking,
| i. c., 10 Dallas county. This was error,
| for where person is prosecuted in q
county other than that were the theft
was committed g complete Offense must
be shown in the county where the convic-
ton was had. A complete feloniCus Of
fepse was not committed unless the sto-
| len property was of or over the value of
$50, il FaDnin county. TIE error in the
charge was for the first time complained
of in tie motion for rehearing and was
overlooked. The motion is granted,
Judgment Of atfirmanCe set aside and
Judgment of conviction reversed and
cause Temanded.
Ex parte Silas Hay vs. State, from
La Sale county; opinion by Hurt. This
IS an appeal from q judgment denying
bail to the Ielator. From the facts in the
record we are constrained to differ from
the Judge who sat upon the bsbeas corpus
hearing below, in holding that proof of
appellants guilt of murder in the first
degree is evident. The judgment Is re-
versed and the relatOr is admitted to bail
in the sum of $4,000, ard it is ordered
that he be discharged from custody upon
the execution Of such bond, etc.